Donaldson v. Canant et al
Filing
32
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay : Defendants Judge Mark Campbell and Matt Stubblefield are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, Defendant Doug Canant is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this action is, in its entirety, DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 21 27 (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KELLY PATRICK DONALDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUG CANANT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 10-447-FHS-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the court on the defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 21
and 27) and the court’s own motion to consider dismissal of the case as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff, an inmate who is incarcerated in the Bryan County Jail in Durant,
Oklahoma, brings this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief for alleged constitutional violations related
to his arrest for Planning a Violent Act in Bryan County District Court Case No. CF-2009329. The remaining defendants are Doug Canant, Probation and Parole Officer for the State
of Oklahoma; Matt Stubblefield, Bryan County Assistant District Attorney; and Bryan
County District Judge Mark Campbell.
Plaintiff alleges he is being maliciously prosecuted in Case No. CF-2009-329. He
claims Defendant Doug Canant, his probation and parole officer, had him charged with
Planning a Violent Act, based on perjured testimony and an alleged audiotape fabricated by
Canant. He further alleges Defendant Matt Stubblefield, Bryan County Assistant District
Attorney, questioned Canant in plaintiff’s March 1, 2010, preliminary hearing about the
alleged incriminating audiotape. At plaintiff’s March 22, 2010, disposition hearing, District
Judge Mark Campbell ordered the audiotape to be turned over by April 5, 2010. Defendant
Canant failed to appear at plaintiff’s May 11, 2010, non-jury trial because of illness, and the
State was granted a continuance. Plaintiff’s motion for relief with regard to his bond also
was denied on that date.
When plaintiff went to court on a pending motion on November 2, 2010, Judge
Campbell asked plaintiff’s counsel if counsel was aware of plaintiff’s pending applications
for writs of habeas corpus filed on September 29, 2010. Counsel stated he did not know
about the applications, so the judge did not make a ruling on them. According to the docket
sheet in the case, the court struck all pending pro se motions on November 5, 2010.
Defendants Judge Mark Campbell and Matt Stubblefield have filed a motion to
dismiss, alleging, among other things, that they possess absolute judicial and prosecutorial
immunity from suit. “[J]udges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity
from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities.” Supreme Court of
Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 734-35 (1980) (citations omitted). See also
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). Prosecutors also possesses prosecutorial immunity
from § 1983 lawsuits which are predicated on performance of functions “in initiating a
prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431
(1976). See also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272 (1993). The court, therefore,
finds Defendants Campbell and Stubblefield are immune from this § 1983 lawsuit and grants
their motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Defendant Doug Canant also has moved for dismissal, alleging plaintiff’s claim is not
ripe, because Bryan County Case No. CF-2009-329 still is pending. To the extent plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages for his alleged unconstitutional incarceration, he first must
2
prove his “conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Because plaintiff has not presented
evidence that his conviction or sentence has been so invalidated, the court finds his claim for
damages against Defendant Canant is not cognizable under § 1983 at this time. Defendant
Canant is dismissed without prejudice.
The court authorized commencement of this action in forma pauperis under the
authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Subsection (e) of that statute permits the dismissal of a case
when the court is satisfied that the complaint is without merit in that it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d
1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987).
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants Judge Mark Campbell and Matt Stubblefield are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, Defendant Doug Canant is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and this action is, in its entirety, DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2011.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?